Validity of the multiple‐stimulus without replacement preference assessment for edible items

Abstract

Studies have shown that the multiple‐stimulus without replacement (MSWO) preference assessment is an effective assessment format for identifying preferred items. However, it is possible that factors other than reinforcer quality might influence selections by some individuals when the MSWO array consists of edible items. The validity of the MSWO results was evaluated by comparing items identified as most and least preferred by the MSWO assessment in a concurrent‐schedule (CS) format. Varying edible items were used in each study. The MSWO format accurately identified the higher quality edible item for most participants across studies (76%); however, the MSWO format did not predict the highest quality edible item in the CS assessment for 20% to 30% of participants in each study.

Do persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities prefer to save the best for last in an MSWO? A preliminary investigation

“…This can be a problem because if the individual saves the best for last, the item which would presumably be the most effective reinforcer is not likely to be included in subsequent behavioral interventions. Here, we present a proof-of-phenomenon study, in which we aim to determine whether saving the best for last is something that warrants further consideration, and to corroborate aspects of the findings reported by Fritz et al (2020).…”

“…T A B L E 3 Days to complete each reinforcer assessment self-control assessment, as described by Fritz et al (2020). Thus, alternative explanations for the lack of correspondence between MSWO and reinforcer assessment results must still be considered.…”

“…In a recent study, Fritz et al (2020) evaluated the validity of the MSWO results by comparing items identified as most and least preferred by the MSWO in a concurrent-schedules format. In the studies involving neurotypical adults (Studies 1-3), the stimulus selected during the highest percentage of opportunities in the MSWO was not selected during the highest percentage of trials in the concurrent-schedules assessment for 20%-30% of participants.…”

“…Alternatively, the phenomenon may be unclear because researchers or practitioners do not become aware that saving the best for last has occurred until the stimulus is incorporated into a behavioral intervention, and the intervention is unsuccessful. There are at least four known publications in which one (Hangen et al, 2020;Soldberg et al, 2007) or more (Fritz et al, 2020) participants were explicitly noted or suspected (see Cameron's data in Call et al, 2012) to save the best for last, all other reports come from conference proceedings (Becerra & Fahmie, 2014;Litchmore et al, 2014;Ngur et al, 2018;Pendharkar et al, 2017;Roath & Fritz, 2015), anecdotal reports, or our own clinical practice. Given the limited published evidence of "saving the best for last" in an MSWO, we sought to add to this literature by searching for evidence of its existence in a relatively small sample and, importantly, by determining whether it has any meaningful impact on the identification of the most effective reinforcers.…”

Do children who exhibit food selectivity prefer to save the best (bite) for last?

“…Although researchers have good reason to believe that items selected first in the MSWO assessment are the most highly preferred (DeLeon & Iwata, 1996), research has shown that low‐ranked items in an MSWO may also function as effective reinforcers (Francisco et al., 2008, 2009). One reason that low‐ranked items might serve as reinforcers is that, for some individuals, item selection might be characterized as “saving the best for last,” meaning that the items selected last may be more preferred than those selected first (e.g., Fritz et al., 2020). Some researchers have elected to use PSPAs in lieu of the MSWO in an effort to circumvent a preference to save the most preferred item for last (e.g., Solberg et al., 2007).…”